"We could have put pressure on Germany during World World 2" - You mean other than trying to end them? What "pressure are you thinking of?"
Bombing the camps would have killed the inmates and moved the operation elsewhere...any covert "commando" mission would have resulted in the deaths/killings being sped up...and people forget...Thousands of "other" people were being killed at the same time...why would this group take precedence? Invading Europe wasn't about the Jewish imancipation..it was about ending the war which would include ending the camps.

What would exposing the soldiers to information about it accomplish? Make 'em fight harder? I hardly doubt it. Men at war very rarely fight for ideas and the like. They fight to get home and nothing else.

According to the customary rules of war the Allies had the right to initiate reprisals against Germany, as it was their own citizens murdered by millions (Poland was one of the Allies and those people were mostly Polish citizens).
This could have included execution of every German (civilian or no) on the territories controlled by the Allies, switching to gas war against German cities, and/or to biological warfare using their enormous anthrax production capabilities.

If someone thinks it was unthinkable I recommend a simple mental excise, if those people were murdered by millions British/American citizens, would the gas/anthrax bombs start flying or not?
I's worth to remember the Allies seriously debated using anthrax (or it was gas?) in response to the V1/V2 attacks, admittedly a much lesser problem.

Even more important question is what they actually did do, not what they didn't do.
And the fact is (as shown by Michael Fleming in his excellent Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust) the Allies (mostly the British) actively censored most information about the Holocaust (including all Polish newspapers even those published by the Polish Government in Exile, and their radio transmissions), and this included even atrocities committed against non-Jews.

As result of the censorship even in the middle of 1944 many European Jews weren't aware of the danger (as shown by David Kranzler in his Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz).

But actually the Jewish leaders share even more guilt, they basically did nothing too, their actions were disorganized, random and ineffectual, they were more interested in their own state in Palestine than doing something about the Holocaust.

Firstly, I should point out we need to take more care of "when". "When" as in, when did "we" know (which helps to define what, exactly, we knew), and "when" "we" are proposing to actually act, as well as the "how."

What exact date does the OP consider the start of the Holocaust? Introduction of the Nuremberg Laws (Sept '35)? Kristallnacht (Nov '38)? Atrocities in Poland (Sept '39)? Use of Einsatztruppen in the USSR '41? The Wanseekonferens (Feb '42)?

The point of censorship was one of credibility.

1) During the Great War, there was huge amounts of atrocity propaganda produced, with the overwhelming amount being sheer fabrications, and shown to have been such after the conclusion of that war. Producing anything reminiscent of those was not going to have any positive result for the war effort, indeed would have reduced the credibility of those organisations making the accusations. Credibility, along with trust, takes too long to rebuild. "Rumours" and information about the holocaust did spread across occupied Europe, but many chose to ignore the warnings of others or trust their (regional) leaders. In Scandinavia, people knew that the rounding up of Jewry was an on going Bad Thing across Europe, yet Norwegian and Danish Jews hoped against hope, trusted their neighbours, and did not attempt to flee or hide until it was (inevitably) too late for most. Only a few escaped when the Gestapo came.

2) There was nothing realistic that could be done from afar. As others have mentioned. So the non-censoring would a) reduce credibility for most or b) cause a public outcry for "something must be done", which for all practical purposes was nil, and only risk diverting important resources needed to focus on what was actually necessary; winning the war.

3) Fantasies about retaliation with Anthrax and other Bacteriological or Chemical weapons ignore the effects these would have on KZ populations (We saw what happened in the work camps once the German transportation network started collapsing in '45), as well as the timing. The Anthrax and its proposed delivery system, was not ready for use until 1944, well after D-Day. These are dangerous materials to be handling, and are not produced on a whim. The Germans too, were having their own problems producing and storing their Chemical weapons. So we could discuss how "serious" any debate was earlier than June '44.

We could have even helped Jews escape with this for knowledge. sure some wouldn't have believed it, more and more would have later in the war. but we could have taken pictures from planes and sent those. I get printing wasn't what it is now. But I personally feel too little was done.

some mention that the soldiers wouldn't have fought harder and I agree, but they could have been briefed on what to expect in X area.

We could have also removed Jewish background soldiers from, fighting in Europe so I disagree there could have been plenty more done.

I also forgot as a veteran infantryman soldier(modern era not back then) myself knowledge of such actions would have one effect no prisoners. abuse of said pow's or the outright murder. So keeping it from the ground troops is a good idea, so inform them heavy civilian resettlement camps here expect this.
before anyone says that is wrong or I can't believe it, believe it. war tends to make you a monster or at the very least deep changes in your morals. trust me. If I knew the other side was killing thousands or millions of babies, women, and children. I would react and treat them different period. easy to say what you wouldn't do and would do until you been in the shit.

We even have this issue now when you've lost a battle buddy, close friend or beloved person in your unit. Sometimes you do seek revenge or at least want to try for a while. Who do you think packs up their shit or clean's their blood and guts from the Humvees? The guy that sits next to him. Now you introduce the guy that killed your buddies is slaughtering civilians wholesale and it would have been bad.

Inform locals of what camp is via drops and Germany (two fold, psyops, and help Jews)
remove all Jewish soldiers and send them to Pacific
inform units in the area before they take the camps what to expect
put world pressure by showing images and video of fly overs and captured camps and paper work/mass graves..etc
make it know any axis units captured doing this, guarding these camps or involved will be executed

We could have even helped Jews escape with this for knowledge. sure some wouldn't have believed it, more and more would have later in the war. but we could have taken pictures from planes and sent those. I get printing wasn't what it is now. But I personally feel too little was done.

some mention that the soldiers wouldn't have fought harder and I agree, but they could have been briefed on what to expect in X area.

We could have also removed Jewish background soldiers from, fighting in Europe so I disagree there could have been plenty more done.

So I mean we should have done the other things I mention above.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense to me. You really haven't thought this through. British and American soldiers were in the UK until June '44. So you plan on informing the civilians, and not the soldiers.... that doesn't seem very practical.

Information and rumours were already rife in occupied Europe. So it is a matter of selling the story. You need to frame and deliver the information ("sent?"; sent where and to whom? The Pope? Slowmail Spam to all in Europe?) "Later in the War" (Which is when exactly?) it was probably too late. "The Holocaust" was not just any single event; you have to define when and what, which affects who knew what, and the possible potential reactions. BTW, it wasn't as easy as you seem to think to fly into Poland / Czechoslavakia during daylight to snap a photo not suffer significant losses, so there isn't this plethora of reconnaissance images you seem to be implying of KZs and mass graves. By then, it was clear the war was going to end soon, .

"World Pressure"... Seriously? Germany was at war with almost the rest of the world. What "pressure" do you imagine those remarkably few states not at war are going to bring to bear? Green states in the image are the Allies. Blue the Axis. Grey the Neutral states. This isn't some late-year unilateral "war-for-oil" to line the pockets of Cheney. What do Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain bring to the table that is suddenly going to convince Nazis to abandon an ideological position they have held for more than 20 years?

In the time frame you seem to be haphazardly moving (around '44/'45, best guess), the situation became fluid, and the camps in Germany had deteriorated dramatically, the transport system collapsing (and therefore even food distribution) in '45 with the increased bombing, with millions of refugees across Germany as the Soviet Army approached from the East... including camp inmates on forced marches.

Why would you remove just the Jewish soldiers? How about the Homosexuals? Communists? Roma? Poles? Russians? Other people with an axe to grind? How are you going to identify these people? Just ask politely? Wiener-check for slicing? Do you have substantial evidence of Jewish soldiers reacting consistently worse than others?

Your steps are simple to write, not so simple to implement in a practical sense.

3) Fantasies about retaliation with Anthrax and other Bacteriological or Chemical weapons ignore the effects these would have on KZ populations (We saw what happened in the work camps once the German transportation network started collapsing in '45), as well as the timing. The Anthrax and its proposed delivery system, was not ready for use until 1944, well after D-Day. These are dangerous materials to be handling, and are not produced on a whim. The Germans too, were having their own problems producing and storing their Chemical weapons. So we could discuss how "serious" any debate was earlier than June '44.

Click to expand...

The collapse of Germany was going to happen anyway, and KZ populations were going to be affected by it - it was unavoidable.

I didn't know Anthrax wasn't ready but chemical weapons certainly were. And the point is gas war favored those with better artillery and better air-force, i.e. the Allies. So it would have been a win-win situation for the Allies, it wouldn't be just about the Jews, but about gaining a definitive military advantage.

I don't say the American or British soldiers should have been dying for the Jews or the Poles, because obviously they should have been only dying for their own countries, but still the exterminated people deserved that at least some token actions (like bombing of Auschwitz's gas chambers) were carried out, and at least British transmissions directed to the occupied territories informed faithfully about the atrocities and the Holocaust.

It's known that a single BBC transmission in German, directed personally to the crew of Auschwitz made a huge impression on them and changed their attitudes towards the prisoners. So really it didn't take that much to do something.

Media

Resources

Members

About US

Welcome to WWII Forums! You are at a gateway to WWII discussion, research, exploration, & analysis. We directly support the repository at WW2.ORG, and several other worthwhile projects that add to the historical record. Join in if you dare!